Welcome to the Online Archive of the Old PublicEye.Org Website

Please remember that this is an archive of an older website for researchers, and it is not being updated. Therefore, much of the material here is not current.
Much like any library archive, it is "out-of-date." Brick and mortar libraries do not toss out older resource materials, they archive them. That is what we have done here.

Providing the fullness of truth and understanding is vital
for world peace and security

By Paul D. Boin <pboin@home.com>

It has been said that the first casualty in war is the truth.
This usually pertains to the propensity for about-to-be warring
nations to conjure up a pretext for war that can be justified
in the public mind. Often this means that the truth is compromised
prior to the shedding of blood. When terrorists strike however,
blood is drawn first, and the victim's pretext for retaliation
is determined second. In the midst of both war or terror truth
can be compromised by the selective exclusion of important information,
the elevation of hearsay or opinion to the status of fact, or by
the outright fabrication of misinformation. In this regard, our governments
and our mainstream news media have much to answer for.

While it could be argued that the terrorist act already constitutes
the pretext for a retaliatory response, any response is an exercise
in decision-making. Even our basest and seemingly automatic human
responses, still inextricably involve a series of choices. Do
we, in the case of the United States and its allies, respond immediately?
Do we confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, who the terrorists were?
Do we retaliate (punish) in a manner that is equal to the initial
terrorist act (crime)? Are we also going to sacrifice the lives
of innocent civilians in our chosen response? Who is to participate
in this retaliatory action? And, what range of repercussions may
follow from our chosen response?

When deciding among these monumental choices, if we are to have
any hope of making good decisions, our elected representatives,
and the citizens in whose name they act, must have access to and
demand the full range of facts. In order to make good, or truth-based,
decisions we require complete and accurate information which is
grounded in a broad context that is appreciative of history, the
present, and the future. What happened on September 11, 2001 was
unspeakably evil and insane. Before we respond to this terrorist
act however, we must first ensure that the truth, or at least
as full a truth as possible, is provided. In a world where there
are enough nuclear warheads to kill all of the world's 6 billion
people dozens of times over, nothing less is acceptable.

GETTING TO "WHY?"

In a times like these we not only need to work towards understanding "what?", "who?",
or "How?"; but if we are truly concerned for future world peace
and security, we must ask the most important question - Why? Many pro-democracy
advocates (elsewhere referred to as 'anti-globalization protesters')
have expressed fear that the new heightened sense of security,
augmented by last week's US Congressional approval of $40 billion
in new emergency and security spending, will be used to roll back civil
liberties and crush out all forms of dissent. When it is these very viewpoints
that offer our best hope of eliminating terrorism.

Many critics of US foreign policy (both official and clandestine)
will be, and have been, quick to conclude that September 11th was
simply a case of " Chickens coming home to roost." By this, people
will point to a litany of examples of the US role in imposing
both incidental terrorism and systemic terrorism on countries - Guatemala,
Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, East Timor, El Salvador, Afghanistan,
the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Panama etc. The US Government's own
documents, recently declassified and meticulously catalogued by
the nonprofit National Security Archives (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv),
will serve as a valuable lesson on the real conduct of governments, so
often kept from public knowledge. So, people will say that September
11th was, in the minds of the terrorists, a simple act of revenge
for previous US government indiscretions. But while this analysis,
and the evidence now available, is clearly important, it is still
an analysis of a symptom. We must dig down to the roots of the problem.

The deeper and underlying cause of systemic terrorism, and the
incidental terrorism that follows from it, is the unjust global
economic system that rich Western governments (not just the US)
have imposed on the poorer countries and, increasingly so, upon
their own citizenry. This global system - from the colonial/mercantile
period to its new incarnation of corporate-led globalization -
is resulting in a world where an elite few nations and individuals
benefit at the expense of an ever increasing number of poorer
nations and people. Such an unjust and unsustainable system can
only be held together by force (systemic terrorism), and will ceaselessly
produce responses (incidental terrorism) to it.

In reacting to last weeks events Thomas Homer Dixon, Director
of the University of Toronto's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,
stated "We have to step back and reflect on what's happening in
the world that is leading to the kind of tensions that produce
this kind of hatred against the west...There are disparities in
this world, there are structural problems with the world economy
that aren't being addressed. The envy, the frustration, and the
anger that arises out of those problems will be directed against
us." Homer Dixon goes on to say "We have to remember....this is
a very small planet now...they can bring weapons everywhere. And
other things like diseases, and pollution flow across boundaries.
We have to recognize that the world has changed in a fundamental
respect." {CBC Radio 2001}

In fact, the US and Canadian Government's defense departments
also quietly admit (more honestly then our politicians, who keep
misleading us into believing that this globalization tide will "raise
all boats") that the present version of unjust corporate-led globalization
is, and will continue to be, directly contributing to the escalation
of terrorism. In a document entitled Global Trends 2015, jointly
researched and produced by the Central Intelligence Agency and
the National Intelligence Council, the US intelligence community
states that the benefits of globalization "will not be universal.
In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the process of globalization
is more compressed. Its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic
financial volatility and a widening economic divide...Regions, countries,
and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation,
political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster
political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the
violence that often accompanies it." {Central Intelligence Agency & National
Intelligence Council 2001} In a 1999 document entitled Shaping the
Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020, Canada's Department
of National Defense concludes that "Ethnic unrest, religious extremism
and resource disputes will likely remain the main sources of conflict,
but environmental degradation and the threat to the nation-state by
globalization may arise as new sources...Disparities between the developed
and developing nations will remain." {Canadian Department of National
Defense 1999}.

In 1999, the US Intelligence Community (The Central Intelligence Community,
the National Intelligence Council, and the State Department) conducted
a workshop entitled Alternative Global Futures: 2000-2015. This think
tank-type workshop, couched within the framework of our present version
of globalization, yielded four different scenarios or alternative futures.

Scenario 1, somehow labeled 'Inclusive Globalization', represents
the best our world could expect. Even within this rosiest of scenarios however,
the US intelligence community holds that while "A virtuous circle develops
among...a majority of the world's people.", they go onto to say that "A
minority of the world's people - in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East,
Central and South Asia, and the Andean region - do not benefit from these
positive changes, and internal conflicts persist in and around those countries
left behind."

This workshop, and the document that followed from it, then goes
on to describe the other 3 scenarios ­ 'Pernicious Globalization'
(Scenario 2), 'Regional Competition' (Scenario 3), and ' Post-Polar
World' (Scenario 4) ­ each of which contain outcomes worse
than our best hope of 'Inclusive Globalization'. {Central Intelligence
Agency & National Intelligence Council 2001} While it is refreshing
to hear the candor of military sources, it seems we must also
question the intelligence of the intelligence community (or more
cynically, their lack of respect of nonwestern people); since
the regions they claim will be "left behind' in 'Inclusive Globalization' ­ namely "Sub-Saharan
Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the Andean
region" - would actually represent a majority of the world's people.
If Scenario 1 represents the best we can derive from the present
bill of goods (corporate-led globalization) our Western politicians
keep selling us, it's about time we stopped buying it.

It would seem therefore, that retaliatory responses to incidents
of terrorism are simply Band-Aid 'solutions' at best. What is needed
to truly " root-out the problem", is to fundamentally alter our
disparity-creating and terrorism-producing model of globalization.
While not given mainstream media recognition, there are inspiring
alternative visions and versions of globalization being presented.
Forums such as the International Forum on Globalization (www.ifg.org/index.html),
the annual World Social Forum (www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/eng/index.asp),
and initiatives like the Council of Canadians' Citizens' Agenda (www.canadians.org/actionlink/citizen_agenda.pdf)
are expanding our imaginations and our range of possibilities.
Collectively these organizations, and their initiatives, are providing
blueprints for achieving a 21st century society that is economically
sustainable, socially just, and environmentally responsible ­ a
world that both nurtures, and is based on, world peace and security.

In the McCarthy era, government officials, and much of the general
public for that matter, were jumping over themselves to pin the
'communist' label on anyone who questioned the simplistic and
faulty notion of "My country right or wrong." After last week's
attacks, there are those in authority and in the public who are
eager to usher in a new anti-terrorist era which would see the
label 'terrorist' pinned on anyone remotely critical of government
actions, or the general state of global affairs. While people in
the US, and world-wide, are experiencing incredibly intense and raw feelings
of horror, sorrow, fear and anger. This anger is directed, understandably
so, towards the perpetrators of this act, and most shamefully
and unjustly towards innocent people of colour. This irrational and
misplaced fear - towards any and all criticism and against people of colour
- must be resisted vehemently and overcome. While the immediate impulse
of governments is to put all people under surveillance and suspicion,
it is the people themselves who must conjure up the courage and the
consciousness to put our governments under the microscope. As our governments
represent us in carrying out actions over this critical period,
we must become ever vigilant and vocal.

INTERRUPTING THE DRUMBEAT FOR WAR

We must all realize that during times of would-be war, the full
truth is severely bottlenecked. As we all watch, read, and listen
to accounts coming from the leading media outlets in our respective
countries, we must treat every story as an unconfirmed report.
Our news media is, and will likely be for months to come, in the
midst of extensive pressure and strategic editing. This editing
usually serves to provide a strategic context that is in line
with each government's 'national interest'. For example, Canadian
viewers were shown repeated video footage of Yasser

Arafat giving
blood on September 12th, while American viewers were not. Russia
has taken the atrocities to justify their own brutal treatment of Chechnya,
and Israel has utilized the events to step up attacks against Palestinians.
This, while India has used it to condemn its main political rival,
Pakistan.

Earlier this year it was also revealed - and has since been confirmed
by CNN's President of News Gathering and International Networks,
Eason Jordan - that the US Military's special Psy-ops unit [Psychological
Operations Group based in North Carolina] had at least five of
its personal working at CNN during the Serbia/Kosovo conflict.
The Dutch journalist who brought this story to public attention,
Abe de Vries, quoted Major Thomas Collins of the US Army Information
Service as saying, "Psy-ops personnel, soldiers and officers,
have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our
program, 'Training with Industry'. They worked as regular employees of CNN.
Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They
helped in the production of news." Devries first became aware of the story
by reading a French military newsletter, Intelligence On-line, which detailed
Colonel Christopher St. John, commander of the US Army's 4th Psy-ops
Group, speaking candidly at a military symposium this past February
in Virginia. Intelligence On-line revealed that the colonel was discussing
the use of the press in military operations and when he stressed
that the military needed even "greater cooperation between the armed
forces and media giants." While CNN's Jordan claims that the five Psy-ops
personnel did not contribute to the production of news, he was forced
to admit however, that they were indeed at CNN [2 in television, 2 in
radio, and 1 in satellite operations), and had only recently been terminated.
{Cockburn 2001} One has to wonder, in the aftermath of last week,
whether Psy-ops personnel have now been re-deployed.

On Friday (September 15) thousands gathered in New York's Union
Square to mark the national day of morning for the victims of the
week's terrorism and to criticize plans to deploy massive military
action, possibly consisting of tens of thousands of ground troops,
in Afghanistan and elsewhere. {NYC Indy Media 2001} Yet when this
event, and similar gatherings throughout the US, was covered in
the mainstream media, the peaceful sentiments of thousands were
conveniently edited out. Earlier this year, Pacifica Radio and
Democracy Now! journalist, Amy Goodman, asked CNN's veteran reporter
and V.P. of Political Coverage, Frank Sesno, the following question. "If
you support the practice of putting ex-military men - generals
- on the payroll to share their opinion during a time of war,
would you also support putting peace activists on the payroll
to give a different opinion during a time of war? To be sitting there
with the military generals talking about why they feel that war is not
appropriate?" Sesno's response - "We bring the generals in because of their
expertise in a particular area. We call them analysts. We don't bring
them in as advocates." {Cockburn 2001} - helps to explain why there doesn't
seem to be any interruptions to the mainstream media's drumbeat for
war.

Not only is CNN, with it's gargantuan reach into over 150 countries, directly
influential, but mainstream media outlets (with far fewer news resources)
throughout the world follow CNN's lead. Whether it be through the
re-airing of video images or the repeating of analysis, CNN's strategic
framing of world issues and events is seen, heard and (mis)understood
far and wide.

Last week, the US Senate voted 98-0 to making $40 billion available
to President Bush, and a war resolution which states that "The
president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations
or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations
or persons." It has already been reported that the $40 billion
is just a start of an ever-growing war chest. According to Normon Soloman,
of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), this resolution has given
the Bush administration a "blank check" which will be "payable with vast
quantities of human corpses." {Soloman 2001}

Since it is no secret that Republican administrations highly favour military
solutions over diplomatic ones, we can expect President Bush to do
his best to treat this war chest as one without a bottom. In fact, the UK-based
investment journal Barrons, reported in February of this year that "Defense
stocks have surged mightily in the past year, partly on the expectation
that the Bush administration would spend lavishly on traditional
defense programs." Even though the S&P Index fell by 10%, the
average share prices of the Big Five military contractors - Boeing, General
Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon - "jumped 46%
last year", upon news of the controversial Bush election victory. Prior
to last week, Pentagon spending for the current fiscal year was to
total $293 billion, which amounts to roughly 3% of the US economy. {Arvedlund
2001} The $40 billion allotted last week puts the total well over
$300 billion, and counting.

In an era of mutual-fund-mania, weapons manufacturers aren't the
only companies set to profit from increased military spending and
new (and prolonged) wars. Former Reagan Administration Defense
Secretary, Frank Calucci, recently became the point man for an
investment firm called the Carlyle Group, which specializes in
holding stock in the weapons industry. According to Barrons, Carlyle,
which has $12.5 billion in its investment portfolio, "boasts in
its literature that it has generated annual returns of 34% for
the past 10 years." Calucci, who's "plush Pennsylvania Avenue offices...are
just a three-buck cab ride from either Capitol Hill or the White
House", has regular working lunches with government officials, including
the present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlyle, which
also has former Prime Minister of Great Britain John Major on its advisory
board, was founded by William Conway Jr. in 1987. Conway, lamenting
back in February on his firms predicament, stated "The problem for
investors is that it's impossible for President Bush to fit all current
weapons development programs into former President Bill Clinton's
defense budget". {McTague 2001} It now seems that this problem
has been solved.

While the mainstream media were quick to voice their absolute
disgust at opportunistic and small-time T-Shirt vendors in New
York City (just days after the terrorist attack), they repeatedly
fail to even question the obscene blood-profits made from the
weapons industry.

In a May 2001 Congressional Statement, and plea for more funding
for counter-terrorism measures, entitled the Threat of Terrorism
to the United States, the FBI and Department of State list among
its terrorism risks what they call "state sponsors of terrorism".
Afghanistan aside, this list includes Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya,
Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. {Federal Bureau of Investigation
2001} Does this mean the heinous events of September 11th will
be used to carry out a "sustained war" against all of these nations?
Or perhaps, 'America's New War' effort will be used to justify
a concentrated and permanent presence in the Middle East - an area
that President Eisenhower called the most "strategically important [i.e.,
Oil] area in the world." {Chomsky 1996}

If retaliation and/or war does occur, which all western governments
and their media seem to keep telling us it will "soon", we can
be sure of two things: One, is that innocent civilians will die;
and two, that the mainstream media will keep the full impact of
our actions from our eyes and ears. We need only to look back
to the Gulf War travesty of journalism, when NBC journalist John
Alpert was blacklisted from US media circles for submitting video
footage of US bomb damage to civilians in Iraq. {Hazen & Winokur
1997: 11} Not only would these truth-based images have contradicted
the US government's line that the Gulf War was an exercise using
'smart' bombs with surgical precision (of military targets), but
it would have injected some much needed sobriety in the popular
support for the war.

The terrorists of September 11th must indeed be brought to justice.
But bringing the world to the brink of World War III, and risking
a nuclear holocaust, is not a justified response.

TOWARDS
WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY

In his book Necessary Illusions Noam Chomsky states that "Citizens
of democratic societies should undertake a course in intellectual self-defense
to protect themselves from manipulation and control and lay the
basis for more meaningful democracy." {Chomsky 1989} While this is good
advice for citizens at all times, it is especially relevant today.

In this regard, people can turn to independent media sources -
Democracy Now! (www.flashpoints.net or www.webactive.com), Free
Speech Radio News (www.freespeech.org), the Independent Media
Centre (www.indymedia.org), Common Dreams News Center (www.commondreams.org),
Rabble.ca (www.rabble.ca), The Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com),
the Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org), Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting (www.fair.org), the New Internationalist (www.oneworld.org/ni),
ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm), and the media of countries that
might be on the receiving end of a US-led response.

These news sources will help us develop a fuller context, and
hence, a fuller truth at this crucial time. My earlier warning,
to take all media reports with critical grains of salt, also applies
to independent media sites (or for that matter, this article).
For example, after checking with the original sources of recent,
and widely circulating, rumors alleging that CNN used old (1991)
footage depicting celebratory Palestinians last week, or that
the hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93 were American citizens,
I found both of these stories to be baseless.

Last week President Bush stated that this "war on terrorism" would
be "The First War of the 21st century". This, while NATO invoked,
for the first time in its 52 year history, Article V, which effectively
means that an act against one NATO nation is an act against all.
While some NATO foreign ministers have attempted to deflect the
gravity of this resolution, ludicrously stating that it is merely "symbolic",
it is in fact a giant step towards world war. Thankfully, there
are some NATO allies that have said that they will require solid
proof before agreeing to any retaliatory action, and that they
will not support an unjustified and overbearing use of force ­ which
would only serve to create that (terrorism) which it is trying
to destroy.

The 21st century does not belong to our government leaders, nor
even to us. This new century, which we are just beginning, belongs
to the world's children. Do we want our children, and their children,
growing up in a culture of war? Or do we want them to grow up
in what former Secretary General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, called
a culture of peace. {Goodman Adelson 2000}

If we hope to achieve a culture of peace, we will need our mainstream media
to create a culture of truth. It's about time that our mainstream media
got with the program - the truth program.

This most important choice, is for each of us to make. We must
do all that we can (e.g., call, e-mail, fax, teach, learn, protest)
to hold our governments and our media to account. By not taking
a stand for peace and restraint today, you are refusing to participate
in the most important decision of your life.

RNN (Real News Network)

Paul D. Boin is a Canadian investigative journalist and media
educator based in Ontario, Canada. Paul is the founder of the Real
News Network (RNN to be officially launched in October), and is
presently completing his doctoral degree in Education (within
the program focus of Critical Global and Community Issues, at
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University
of Toronto), and has concentrated his dissertation research on
media and democracy issues. He is also a co-founder of Media Democracy
Day (www.MediaDemocracyDay.org) ­ 1st Annual this October
19th - and is an associate with the Transformative Learning Centre
(www.tlcentre.org). Paul is presently working on a book entitled "Reclaiming
Our Minds: Towards a Democratic News Media and Society", to be
published in 2002. He can be reached at pboin@home.com.

The Real News Network (RNN): is an independent media organization
devoted to informing the people of the world of vital issues that
have bearing on their society, environment, economy, and future.
RNN conducts original investigative journalism and news media
analysis, while amplifying real news stories as they appear in
any, and all, media. If you would like to support this type of
(time and resource intensive) investigative reporting become an
RNN MEMBER, and receive 4 special in-depth RNN Investigative Reports
(20 to 30 pages each), in addition to the Real News Briefs. RNN MEMBERSHIPS
can be obtained for $20 (Price includes shipping and taxes. US price
is $20, International orders add $2). Mail, and make check payable, to:
the Real News Network, 35 Green Valley Dr., Unit #1204, Kitchener, Ontario,
Canada, N2P 2A5.